|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IA: Local gun club has safety concerns with handgun training for those under 14
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That's what leaders at a local gun club said about a provision in Iowa's new firearms law.
Specifically, the section now allowing those under 14 to possess a pistol or revolver while under the direct supervision of an adult. The supervisor has to be 21 or older and must be within ear and eyeshot of the gun user.
The new rule would allow gun clubs to do handgun training for children, but the local Izaak Walton League said they won't.
For years, instructors there have taught gun safety to minors using rifles and shotguns. But, teacher safety is why the group won't be training kids under 14 to use handguns-- even though the state now allows it. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(4/15/2017)
|
Our local Izaak Walton chapter has ALWAYS left this decision up to parents. Some 10 year olds show more muzzle discipline than some 40 year olds ! Proper training at any age is the answer to safety, and IMHO the earlier the better !
I'd also point out that any gun club/range at an Izaak Walton chapter is only a part of the overall entity - many IW chapters do not even have ranges - and this Chapter's position is theirs only, not necessarily that of the Izaak Walton League of America. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
